New Andy, Same Roger, Same Result

Andy Roddick should look at the bright side. He didn't lose to Roger Federer as badly as he usually does. Still, in the Australian Open semifinals on Thursday, Federer beat Roddick in straight sets, 6-2, 7-5, 7-5.

The two 7-5 sets are the hopeful part for Roddick. Maybe he can catch the Federbot one of these days. Roddick actually beat him the last time they played, almost a year ago in Miami. Prior to that, Roddick hadn't even won a set against Federer since late in 2006. That's how dominant Federer is. He is not the Tiger Woods of tennis. Tiger Woods is the Roger Federer of golf.

Federer now has a lifetime record of 16-2 against Roddick. That's impressive enough, but if you break the stats down one more level, his prowess becomes clearer. Their lifetime set record stands now at Federer 40, Roddick 5. The two have never gone to five sets.

It wasn't supposed to be like this, of course. We're seeing a different Andy Roddick this season. He is leaner and fitter, but more than that, he's calmer. He's more focused. And he still can't get over on the Federbot.

Federer now advances to the finals, where he'll have a chance to tie Pete Sampras's career record of 14 Grand Slam Titles. Sampras didn't get his 14th Slam until he was 31. Federer just turned 28 back in August. The question isn't even when he'll break the record. The question is how far he'll go beyond Sampras.

The only thing standing in the way of Federer now is the winner of the Rafael Nadal-Fernando Verdasco match on Friday. That probably means yet another Federer-Nadal tournament final, though Verdasco is clearly on the rise. Nadal, however, is the rock in Federer's shoe. He is one of the few players with a lifetime winning record against the Federbot. It's not even close. Nadal leads him 12-6.

That's what freaks my freak. Rarely in any sport have we seen an athlete who performs at such a high level for such a long time as Federer has ... and there's somebody just as good playing at the same time. There's a golden age of men's tennis, and we're living in it.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

1-29-2009 @ 3:16PM

Bob said...

Mark, I would have to stick with your original comparison between Tiger and Roger, using Woods as the yardstick to measure Federer by, because in golf, there is no "kryptonite" for their "Superman". Federer, while a stellar talent, is far too inconsistent against Nadal to put him above Tiger in the comparison. Otherwise, an excellent article.

1-29-2009 @ 4:22PM

andremarshall said...

TIGER vs. ROGER - Who is the real KING of wining Majors? Tiger won his first major at the Masters in 1997 at age 21. He is now age 33 with 14 majors. Roger won his first major at Wimbledon in 2003 also at the age of 21. He is now age 27 with 13 majors. Ever since wining his first major Tiger is 14/48 in wining majors. A wining percentage of 29%. Ever since Roger won his first major in 2003 Roger is 13/21 majors a wining percentage of 61%. Tiger is 4 majors shy of the all time mark of 18 set by Jack Nicklaus and Roger is 1 major shy of the all time mark of 14 set by Pete Sampras when Pete was age 32. Finally, Roger won his first major 6 years and 25 majors after Tiger won his first! THINK ABOUT THAT?

1-29-2009 @ 7:43PM

guapoa214 said...

Roger completely and totally dominated Andy today. It wasn't really that close. Andy tried everything and it didn't help because he really thinks Roger is superior. He plays like he is in awe of him. Andy has the skill and the tools, what he lacks is the belief that he can beat him Roger. Without that, he will always come up short.

1-30-2009 @ 1:00AM

Furioso said...

Nadal is 9-1 against Fed on clay, and Nadal will certainly go down as the greatest clay court player ever. Without Nadal in the way, Federer would probably boast a French Open crown or two already. Fed holds a 5-3 edge on grass and hard courts, faster surfaces that play to his many strengths. A career losing record to Nadal is a bit misleading and really does little to tarnish Federer's ultimate legacy. What a fantastic rivalry! Fed is healthy and Nadal is maturing. I expect them to push each other to unbelievable heights this year. Four grand slam finals with those two would be beyond epic.

1-30-2009 @ 1:08AM

jack2951 said...

Hasty says: "Federer now has a lifetime record of 16-2 against Roddick. That's impressive enough, but if you break the stats down one more level, his prowess becomes clearer. Their lifetime set record stands now at Federer 40, Roddick 5." Duuh. That's the same 8 to 1 ratio for BOTH parameters. Hasty' lack of math prowess is all that's clear here.

1-30-2009 @ 11:45AM

Mark Hasty said...

The 40-5 set ratio establishes that the matches haven't been close, for the most part.

1-30-2009 @ 8:57AM

James said...

golf is so much harder to win than tennis,,,you have to be so much more precise,,you dont get to do your tee shot over if the first one is out,,you are playing against 70 people at a time, not just one (or two in doubles). you have to play 4, sometimes 5 days in a row,,then you throw in Tigers record on his bum knee, he played in 4 or 5 event last year while th rest of the field played in 20+ events and he still ranked in the top 3 and retains his #1 ranking...so I know its cheeky to assume things, but if tiger's knee was normal last year, he would have dominated in such a way that you never would have worded your comparison the way you did.

1-30-2009 @ 5:40PM

chrv40 said...

what happen to nadel why no story about him and his match this morning

1-31-2009 @ 5:33AM

demzrdopes said...

clearly roddick has all the physical skills, he just doesn't have it where it counts -between the ears.

2-01-2009 @ 3:48PM

For anyone still checking back on this, I see that Federer once again backed up the argument that Tiger Woods should be the yardstick to measure Roger by, and not the other way around. Tiger has no clear rival that beats him most of the times they've faced each other, whereas Federer still doesn't have a consistent answer for Nadal. The whole "this one took this long to win this many" argument just doesn't work here, because Roger has been repeatedly denied by the same person, while Tiger must compare his scores to the entire field. When there is one person who consistently beats you, that makes you...number TWO.

2-02-2009 @ 10:14AM

oooops
there goes your theory Mark.
Were you crying when Roger lost too?
Dont take your life sized poster of him down from your bedroom wall just yet..he will probably win again soon - if nadal gets hurt